tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 30, 2015 8:00pm-12:01am EST
there are lots of them around. we know some, don't we. we could introduce you. it's maddening, this denial of science, and it's not only terrible for the environment and our children and our grandchildren, it's bad for the economy. i want to set some big goals. by the end of my first term i want us to have installed a half a billion more solar panels and by the end of my second, another clean energy to power every home in america. [cheering] >> i'm also really focused on doing more for small business. i want to be the small business president because 60% of our new jobs will come from small business, and right now, we're not seeing the growth that we need. did you know it's now easier to start a small business in canada or france than it is in the
united states? we have some great champions of small business on this stage. i want to work with them and with others to clear out the brush, to get the credit flowing again to get more people with those good ideas a chance to be able to start and grow a business. my dad was a small businessman, and i deeply respect that entrepreneurial spirit. we're also going to have to tackle the tax code with all of its inefficiencies and all of it unfairness. i know what a big undertake can that is, but right now, it's really stacked in favor of the wealthy. all of the loopholes, the deductions, whatever it is that enables somebody to escape paying their fair share, the wealthy pay too little and the middle class pays too much and i have said, i think the middle class deserves a raise, not a tax increase, and i will not raise taxes on middle class families because they have to
get back to where they were before they fell into that ditch of the great recession. [cheering] >> but you know, if you're thinking about raising income, you know the fastest, surest way of doing? it's to make sure women get equal pay for equal work. [cheering] >> i heard barbara mikulski talking about the paycheck fairness act. we're going to move heaven and earth to get that passed because this is still a real problem. now, it's not a if you listen to the republicans, but i actually meet real people. i've actually had some real conversations. i'll tell you one of them. a young man in new hampshire said to me, i want to tell you why i'm for you. i said why? he said because my first real job -- he called it my first real job -- i went to work as a cashier in the store where my mother had been working four years.
he said i was really excited. this was it. like an adult thing i was doing. he said i worked there, then i got my first paycheck and took it home and showed my mom and i watched her fairs fall, and i asked her what the problem was. and she said, you have been there for two weeks, you're making more than i make. i've been there four years. and i said, what? what could have caused that? he said, you know, people keep their eye out for young, promising men they might put into management programs. he said they pay them more to try to keep them. and his mom, who had been working to support him all those years, was being short-changed. but it's not enough just to have equal pay. we have to begin to provide more support so familiesening balance work and family responsibilities
issue paid family lead, paid sick days, care-giving credit for people who deserve it, to take care of a loved one. we have to start looking at what people are living like today. it is not 1955. it's 2015. we need to do more to lift up the opportunity ladders that have been knocked down or broken up. and i believe so strongly that if we give women an equal chance to compete, it's not only good for them, and their families, it's good for our economy, it's a growth strategy. and something else that is part of the growth strategy is education. i want to do everything i can to make sure k through 12 education is the best we can offer to our kids. and i believe the place to start is in early childhood education. [cheers and applause]
>> 80% of your brain is physically formed by the age of three. it really matters what happens in those early years. and we have to pay attention because i think talent is universal but opportunity isn't, and there are too many young people who are behind the first day they walk into kindergarten. then we have to make college affordable again and i have rolled out my new college compact to do that so you don't have to borrow a dime to pay tuition if you go to a public four-year college or university and community college will be free because we have to start thinking those of two additional years as the extension of what high school used to be. [cheers and applause] >> and we're going to work to make sure we help people pay down their student debt. right now $1.2 trillion in student debt.
it's just crippling dreams and aspirations. it's preventing young people from getting the jobs they want or even getting married, and everywhere i go i ask how many of you have or ever have had student debt. hands always go up. we can save thousands of dollars and i do not believe that the federal government should be making money off of lending money to our students to get their education. [applause] >> i will also defend the affordable care act. [cheers and applause] >> we need to improve it, which i will do my best to do, working with the congress. but the republicans have tried to repeal it more than 50 times. they want to throw us bach into that terrible contentious debate. we have been working since harry truman to have a foundation to provide quality, affordable health care. we have to get the out oft of
pocket costs, prescription drug costs down, about that is built on the base of having the affordable care act. and the prescription drug costs went up 12% last year. this is just unsustainable. and i know it's hard because i've got the scars to prove it. we have got to get those costs in some way controlled, otherwise it will be impossible for people, whether they're in medicare or medicaid or private insurance, or one of the exchanges, to be able to afford the drugs and treatments they deserve, and we're going to fight like crazy to give medicare the authority to negotiate with the drug companies something the drug companies do with governments around the world. [cheers and applause] >> three quick things. on health, number one, we do need to deal with the
care-giving crisis. people everywhere who are having so many challenges and there's two ways of doing it. i want to give a tax credit to people taking care of someone with alzheimer's or some other condition that is debilitating but the family wants to be able to care for their loved one. i also think we have to pay more attention to untreated mental health problems. something that -- [applause] >> there's an incredible part of this experience of running for president. maybe it's just me but i think probably all my friends could tell you similar stories, maybe because we're women. i don't know. people tell you the most intimate and personal things. it may only be a handshake, 30 seconds or a minute, and they'll look at you and say, my son has a drug problem. and we can't find any help.
is there anything you know to do? or my brother has been suffering from schizophrenia, we can't afford any help. is there anything you can do? if you listen to enough stories like that, particularly about mental health and substance abuse, you know we have to do more. and it's going to be a high priority to try to get the resources in balance with the problems so that we have enough treatment, recovery programs, prevention, intervention, and again, something that i have been talking about and talking through policies to make sure that we get the right mix, because i don't want to just be the president to deal with the big problems in the headlines, although obvious live that's a huge part of the job. i want to also figure out if there are ways we can help with those problems that keep you up at night. the worries that families sit around the kitchen table and try
to puzzle through. so we have a lot of work to do, but i'll tell you we also have to defend the progress we have made in making sure that our country is moving forward and protecting and recognizing the rights of all of our citizens. and i have learned in my years in politics to listen to what people say when they run for office because they may actually try to do it. so when you listen to the attacks on human rights and civil rights and women's rights and gay rights and immigrant rights and workers rights, pay attention. and i will tell you right now, i will defend a woman's right to choose, i will defend planned parenthood. [cheering] [cheering]
>> what we saw in colorado springs the other night was just horrific. and we have to stand up for the rights of women to get the health care they need. and we have strong, strong soldiers and fighters in pursuit of that behind me. i will also defend marriage equality and work against continuing discrimination against the lgbt community. it makes no sense. you can get married on saturday and fired on monday in a lot of places in america. we have to change that. i will also defend voting rights. who knew we would system have to be defending voting rights in the 21st century, but because of the supreme court's rejection of the congress' reauthorization
and george w. bush's signing of that reauthorization, so many states across our country are trying to undermine voting rights. trying to suppress the right to vote. not only will we defend those who are put into that difficult position, i want to make it possible for every 18-year-old to be absolutely registered upon turning 18, and to make that the law of the land unless they opt out, so young people start getting involved in the electoral process. and i will do everything i can to overturn citizen is united, which is corrupting our politics. [cheering] >> it's like through the next president will have one to three supreme court justice appointments. and i will appoint people who care more about an individual's right to vote than a corporation's right to buy an
election. [cheers and applause] >> i will also defend social security against privatization, defend medicare against voucherrization, and defend the va. yes, we have to reform and it change the problem but we're not going to let the republicans privatize the va and move away from providing those services for our vets. i will keep working for comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship. i will work in promoting criminal justice reform and corrections riot -- and corrects reform and i hope we get some bipartisan sugarses before the end of this term and i will continue to fight against the gun lobby on behalf of gun safety measures in america. now, --
[cheers and applause] >> you know, when you have 90 people a day dying from gun violence, homicide, suicide, tragic, avoidable accidents, 33,000 people a year. if something else were killing 33,000 americans we'd say, hey, we need to do something. and what we need to do are comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loophole, the online loophole, the charleston loophole, ending the immunity for gunmakers and sellers. but we know how hard this is. look at what is happening right now. there's a bill that is bottled up that would prohibit individuals on the no-fly list from buying a weapon.
republicans won't let it come for a vote. you would think if someone is too dangerous to fly, they're too dangerous to buy a gun. and at the very least, we should try to restrain that from happening. so we have work to do. and we need to continue to lead around the world. i am very committed to leading with our values, advancing our interests, furthering our security, and i intend to do it in a way that leads with both strength and smarts. because we do have some real challenges and threats out there we can't ignore. lots of attention being paid to isis, it needs to be defeated. it has to be wiped out. that will take time and it will take american leadership. but it's something that we cannot ignore. that doesn't mean that we put
american troops in either syria or iraq. i'm against that. and the republicans who are promoting it are not serious about what we need to do and how best to try to limit the spread of this radical jihaddist violent extremism. so there's a lot to do, my friend, and i can only hope you will work hard with me through the primaries and the caucuses, into the general election, because it's going be a hard journey. there's no doubt about that. because so much is at stake. it's sort of perversely flattering i get so much attention from the other side. i've listened to their debates and it seemed like they had a lot to say about me being secretary of state. none of it good. so i sent them all a copy of my book "hard choices" and i said,
you know, if you want to know how to put together an international coalition, including china and rich, to impose crippling sanctions on iran, you can read about it. or maybe you want to negotiate a cease fire between israel and hamas with the muslim brother brotherhood, morsis' in cairo. that's there too. i suggested there were so many of them they could form a book club and read it together. [cheers and applause] >> probably won't surprise you to hear i didn't get one thank you note. but finally, this election is really for me about our children and now i can say grandchildren. and the reason i say that is because i want to be sure that the promise of our country, that i was raised to believe in, will be there for generations to
come. i'm the granddaughter of a factory worker from scranton, pennsylvania, who went to work every single day in the scranton lace mills. he worked really hard. and he did it to support his family, about he also did it because he wanted his three sons to have a better life. and they did. they all went to college. and then my dad graduated in middle of the depression, heard there was a job in chicago, hopped a freight train glock, got the job, became a salesman, went into the navy, came out, started a small business. always believed that his hard work would be rewarded, and his freedom would be guaranteed. my mom had a very different life. she was rejected and abandoned by her parents, sent to live with grandparents who can't want her, and then by the age of 14 was working as a house maid. i didn't know any of this until
i wag older and i was pretty shocked. it was so different from the really solid life that she gave me. and i asked her, how did you do it? she said, you know, along the way, people were kind to me. not my family, but a teacher, even the woman whose house i worked in. she, too, always believed in that promise of our country. so now i have this amazing grandchild, and i'm going to do everything i can as will my husband to make sure she has every opportunity she could possibly take advantage of. but you know what, that is not enough. it really matters what kind of country she becomes an adult in. and what kind of world is out there waiting for her. and i don't think you should have to be the granddaughter of a former president to have the promise of america made real for you. i think you should be the granddaughter of a factory worker or the grandson of a
♪ ♪ >> c-span2 takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates, at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet and greets. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook, and by phone. and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our web site. c-span2.org. >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> coming up. >> showed a piece of paper, and -- to see the paper and to read it, see what it was.
which they refused to do so the grabbed it out of his hands to look at it, and then a scuffle scattered and she put this piece of paper into her bossesome, and very readily the police officer put his hands into her bus so many and removed the paper and thereafter, thereafter, handcuffed her while the police officers started to search her. >> in 1957 the cleveland police went to mamp's home who they believed to be harboring a bomber and demanded access. she refused. they rind with da document they claimed was a warrant, they force evidence themselves into the home and searched the residence. police confiscated a trunk containing an seen pictures. she was arrested and sentenced to seven years. she sued and her case made it
all the way to supreme court. we'll examine the case of mapp very ohio and faulk about illegal searches searches and ss on the next landmark cases, live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio, and for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it's available for 8.95 plus chipping at c-span2.org/landmark cases. >> the communicators is next with robbie bach. and a look at wasteful spending by the federal government in a new report released today by republican senator james lankford of oklahoma. litter defense undersecretary mike mccord talks about the defense budget.
>> now on c-span we want to introduce you to robbie bach, the author of this book "xbox revisited, game plan for corporate and civic renewal. p.o.w. a form president of microsoft and he was called the chief xbox officer. mr. bach, what is xbox? >> guest: well, xbox is a video game console that microsoft came out with starting in 2001. they're now on their third version as far as it competes with play station and nintendo in the video game market. >> has it's successful.
>> guest: all these consoles havephone how to stages and cycles the first version has success in the marketplace but was challenged financially. the second version, xbox 360, was a big success, both in the market and financially, and now with the new what way call xbox 1, just getting started so we'll see over the next four or five years how successful that is. >> host: what was your role in the development of xbox? >> guest: well, we got started, i was put in charge of the project. so at the beginning there was about 20 of us that soon grew to 2,000, and then maybe 3,000 over time. and so for the first six or seven years i was the chief xbox officer. want it. and then toward the end of my tenure at microsoft in 2008, we brought in somebody to work for me to run xbox and i ran xbox and a number of other things. then i left microsoft in 2010 and have been gone almost five years. >> host: what was the birthing process like for xbox?
>> guest: xbox was really challenging. suspect anybody who has gone through a startup or trying to create a company from scratch has experienced those pains. it's challenging. you're building a team, trying to build a product that was very complex technically, a very tight time frame, only about 12 months to work on the hardware and 18 months on the project overall. that was very challenging. clearly he most difficult thing i've done in any professional career, and at one point during the process i got so frustrated i tried to resign from the project and resign from microsoft. really challenging. >> host: why. >> guest: the think you find when you're building a project like this is you dive in to get things done, and you forget to step back and think about things at aing extra level -- strategy level. are we hiring the right people, bringing the team together in the right way? he wad such a tight time frame we were struggling to fight with the next day's fires, and we
stayed so focused on tasks that we never stepped back and said, are we on the right strategy or do we have the right team and the right anymore and as you got further along in the project the lack of running upfront started to show and if it led to conflict and challenges in making the right digits. >> host: ronnie bach, you write about in your book, 15 years or 14 years past, what you do differently? >> guest: well, i think the obvious thing is to step back a little bit and get a little more specific in our strategy. i think we had some good core ideas, but we hadn't really melded that into a strategy that everybody on the team was focused on, and everybody agreed this house we would do things. the other thing is i learned that culture and group dynamics are everything. so as a leader it's my job to make sure we have the right people, we're work thing the right culture, and we mad what i
would call a united nations culture on the first version of xbox, and if i had to do it over again i'd go back and try to be more conscious about the people motion conscious about the culture with built so we could work better together earlier in the project. >> host: you say you can -- you want take what you have learn from building xbox and apply that to civic engineering. what specific lessons would you take? >> guest: well, i think the biggest thing, the other thing i talk about at the most length in my book is the strategy process. what we did with the second version of xbox, the product that people came to not xbox 360, we worked through the strategy process, and that says that for every project or everything you're trying to accomplish you want to be crisp about juan-sentence purpose, you want to establish the set of principles how you'll work, the culture things i talked beside. and you want to have a maximum of five priorities you'll focus on, which requires you to decide a number of things just not to
worry about at that point in time. and if we had done that in the first version i think the product would have been better. what i then do is apply that to the civic world. if you think about a local nonprofit, local government agency, state or even federal agency, the issues we face, have we framed those right at a strategic level or always make the mistake of diving straight in and saying, know a solution for that, or i have an opinion about that. rather than stepping back and talking about first principles first. >> host: can you give an example from the book? >> guest: well, i think really good example is the work we did with -- that it do on the u.s. olympic committee. on the board of the u.s. olympic committee. when scott blackman took over tuesday the new ceo of the u.s. olympic committee and 2010 he had us step back and say let's do some strategy work, and we worked on the mission statement for the board and for the
organization, and we only made a few changes to that mission statement which in the frameworks i work in would be called a purpose statement. but those few changes reshaped how we thought about the organization. it enabled to us allocate resources in a better way. enabled to us think about how we were supporting athletes and sports in a different way. and those small changes built the foundation on which there has been a real resurgence in what the olympic movement is doing in the united states, and that's a foundation that will serve us well in the future. i also have been doing some work with municipal i.t. department. trying to merge into a central i.d. youch might think, information technology so what. the fact is they're figure ought their purpose is to serve citizens of their community. and ironically that's a new idea for them. and that process discovering they're serving the citizens is changing the way they work and will lead to better outcomes what they do in i.t.
>> host: you talk about the rebuilding of a bridge in seattle as an example of planning going badly. what was that. >> guest: there's a -- seattle has this beautiful but unique challenge of having a big lake right next to it, and that lake is so deep they can't put a regular bridge on it. so it's a -- have to have floating bridges that go cross. the 520, state highway floating bridge, was built in 1965, and it needs to be replaced and needed to be re placed in the early 1990s, but because they didn't do a real thoughtful strategic process about how to think through that challenge, how to resolve conflicts in the community early in the process, it took almost 15 years to get an agreed upon plan, and now they're in the process of building it, and in fact the plan is incomplete, and the bridge goes across the lake to seattle but doesn't connect up in the correct way with interstate 5 on the other side.
so you have effectively a bridge that goes somewhere but not as far as is should go, and there's more work still to do, and here we're now almost 20 years later. so, the bridge is more expensive, there's going to be some cost overruns, and in the meantime we have a bridge that's not safe and serving too many cars. this is a classic example of a community, in fact in this case several communities-not coming together and thinking about the core elements of what they want first, and then building a plan from that. >> host: so, is it a little bit naive to think about everybody should come together and work for a common purpose? >> guest: no. because i don't think purpose is easy. and i don't think everybody is ever going to agree. the goal isn't to word-smith a sentence so everybody agrees on one sentence. the goal is to have the arguments about purpose up front, and ultimately in any of these projects, somebody has to be a decisionmaker and has to say, okay, everybody has been
heard. we have had a great interactive discussion, verying points of view. some point the people who disagree will either continue to fight and that's okay, or they'll say, okay, this project is going ahead without me and i'll move on and do something else but the purpose is clear for everyone going forward. so you have had the arguments up front and the disagreements up front and then reached the best possible solution you can in the bridge example, in the end, bridge had to be built. so, some decisions had to be made. the question is could they have been made ten or 15 years easterlier. >> and if contend they would have been if they could have been, and the same amount of community discussion but the decision would have been made, just earlier, and less cost and with a safer outcome. >> host: robbie bach, is it possible to transfer business knowledge, business expertise, into a government sphere? >> guest: well, i think you have to be careful because businesses don't work the same way government does and governments
don't work the same we businesses do, and i'd say that nonprofits don't work the way governments do or businesses do. so, in each case you can't literally say we did it this way, therefore we should do it exactly the same way in a government or a nonprofit organization. but there are elements in this case a framework, that you can in fact move. there are elements of accountability, transparency, good decisionmaking process, good strategic framework thinking, that can be transferred. how the organizations work with that, how they shape those issues, how they frame them, and how they move them through the process, is absolutely going to be different. a legislative process is very different than a decisionmaking process in a company, but the core ideas can still be the same, and likewise, i think there's ways in which businesses can learn from governments and from nonprofits. so, there's a learning process, a translation process, not a direct transfer process. >> host: in xbox re viedow
talk about the simpson-bowles commission. why? >> guest: well, one of the things you learn when you build one of these strategy frameworks is suddenly you actually have to implement them. the question then becomes how to make something happen in an environment where you have a complex set of things and lots of different people involved and engaged. and one of the ideas in approaching these problems, establishing the strategy and figuring out hugh to execute against them, is to get a collection of people together in the simpson-bowles case, commission, in the case of xbox, something we called the zig, the xbox integration team, and that group really fleshed out the details of the plan. so you take your strategy framework and flesh it out into details of a plan. and many respects the simpson-bowles commission was design to be something that would fresh out the specifics of legislation for dealing with the budget crisis, and did that
effectively. and if we, frankly in my view, had a little more courage we could have gone further with that work. in case of the xbox integration group we used that to build xbox 3060, in the case of simpson-bowles it became a footnote in the process that led to us some very awkward times in the u.s. government. >> host: get the hell out of document you write. i've been to washington, dc on many occasions to lobby on capitol hill for various business and social interests. i've met with congressional members, senators, arraignmenttive aides and staff evers, lobbyists, consultants and policy wonks. unfortunately, i've had more than my share of bad experiences generally not because people disagreed with me but because they were downright disagreeable. >> guest: yeah. washington, dc actually is a place i love to go, and at an individual level, i enjoy maple many people there i enjoy the process of government and
process of policymaking, but i will tell you when i go there, it's quite clear that people have an agenda, and this isn't just unique to washington, dc. this happens in lots of places. people have an agenda, and my experience has been -- it's only my experience -- that those agendas are less about what is good and right for the community and the american people or whatever but more about what is good and right for the politics of the day. and that's always been the case, but i think it's more so that way now than ever before. and when the politics of the day is the primary principle under which you are governing, things don't generally happen, and i always -- i shouldn't say always -- most of the time when i leave after those visits i feel a sense of unease, a sense of distrust and somehow people listen but through a lens that was clouded by their own priorities north by the priorities of what is right for the community or the country. and that creates a tricky
process and part of the reason why i think many americans don't trust what is go on in washington, dc. >> host: whoa due you think that divide is more pronounced today? >> guest: well, i think there's a lot of reasons for that. some of them are about the electoral process. some of them are about the literally the internals of how congress works today. while the former process of things like earmarks led to a lot of bad outcomes it also gave legislative leaders an opportunity to manage the process in a careful way and build consensus around certain issues. so today you have leaders in the house and the senate who i think have a difficult time leading because they don't have the tools to get people to follow them. and it makes it very hard to create consensus because people become very focused on one issue or one ideology. as opposed to thinking more broadly about what is right in the longer run. and so we have become very issue-specific. we have become very ideological
in our approach. and that makes it difficult to get to a solution. and that's why so much of what we see in washington, dc today is more about stalemate than about moving things forward. >> host: robbie bach, the former president of microsoft, former chief xbox officer, his book is called "xbox revisited: a game plan for corporate and civic renewal." mr. bach, does washington understand the tech community? >> guest: um, that's a really good question. i think there are leaders in washington who do understand that tech community. i can promise you the leadership from the state of washington absolutely understands the tech community, some of them actual live worked in it. so i think there are elements of people who do understand the tech community. like any other industry, the level of understanding varies from top to bottom and from left to right. i think the really interesting question, leave aside the tech community, the real question is
whether washington understands the innovation process, and whether they understand what an incredible asset the united states has, and i'm not just talking about silicon valley. i would say this about places around the country, where we have incredibly innovative thinkers and schools that produce innovative thinkers, and in many respects at an economic level that's one of the things the -- is us from most economies in the world. i don't know that our -- those that are governing understand that completely. some i'm sure do. but i think there's a little bit of a lack of understanding on what a powerful asset that is for the country as a whole. not just for certain parts of the country, but across the country, and what we need to do to leverage that going forward. >> host: the tech community today, you're a stanford best school grade. semi traditional in that sense but working in the tech industry, do you find yourself
putting up against the new ways of -- putting up against then new ways of doing things? >> guest: the interesting thing is i'd say about microsoft is we were sort of an interesting blend. when i joined there, the company was very technology-oriented. very new technology thinking, very engineering oriented, and over time, the company began to realize we had to innovi not only in technology but we had to innovate in our approach to selling products and our approach to marketing. so i feel like i've had a good training training in both sides of that issue. i think in the tech community as a whole, companies struggle with engineering innovation and actually productizing that innovation and bringing it to market. there's a lot of good tech, quote-unquote, that never gets to market because the companies aren't able to figure out how to productize it in a way that works for a business or for a consumer. and that is what -- when you see the thing that apple does and
microsoft does, google, facebook, companies like that, one skill they have is the ability to figure out how to productize technology in way that works for consumers and that's a soft skill that is very important. >> host: how do you define civic engineering. >> guest: the work that any of us can do and all of us should and must do to make our communities operate more eefficiently and effectively, to make our communities serve citizens in a better way, and it's old school civics, and it's super important. >> host: september 11, 2001, where were you? >> guest: i flew into jfk at 7:00 a.m. in the morning on a redeye from seattle, and went to the mariott marquee, and went to sleep. took a little bit of a nap. i had a press tour that day and when i woke up, i got a phone call from the lawyer at our pr agency telling me the pr tour
had been canceled and offering to help me, and i'd been asleep and didn't know why. and turned on the television to to the horror of what was 9/11. >> host: was this an xbox related press tour? >> guest: it was. it was what we call our long lead tour. this was in september. we have a lunch in november. coming to meet with journalists who do background work. i subsequently came back to new york to fee weeks later to complete the tour that day changed me as it changed many americans. and i had a small -- i had no partner tragedy but was in new york first hand and then traveled across the country in a car with three other people to get home, and that had a deep impact on me. brought me back to my civic roots and my american roots and something i think about quite frequently, even today. >> host: how did it change you,
though? how did it change your approach to work, to business to xbox to microsoft? >> guest: well, i think the thing it did, is a think it did for many people-put a lot of things in perspective. we were going through a very difficult time on xbox at that point. it was unclear the product was going to ship. we were struggling with tech technical issues and manufacturing issues. a very difficult time. and, yet when you put that in the context of 9/11, you sort of say, okay, this is work, it's important, but it has its place. and there are things that are more important. and the things that matter more are and more challenging, and it put me back on the road to paying attention to things beyond my job. and that was a powerful change for me and took me another nine years to get back to it full-time but certainly reinforced me the importance of being engaged in the community.
>> host: whos this book written for? >> guest: i really have two audiences i write for when i write a book or write on my blog or give speeches. the first may surprise you a bit but it's for a younger audience, high school, college students, grad students. the people that have to deal with the civic issues we're creating today and they have open minds and are willing to think about things in a different way, and because xbox is a bit part of their culture and part of how they grew up-, the content subject matter appeals. so the idea is to reach that audience with a message about strategy and leadership. the second us aens is anyone nose a position to work in the community. that might be a corporate ceo, might be a mid level manager in a company, small business owner. might be somebody who works in a nonprofit. all people who have a role to play in our civic organizations,
and the idea to give them something that is both an interesting read and an interesting story but hopefully give them a few nuggets they can take away from their civic part of their lives and get them engaged as an army of civic engineers. >> host: robbie bach, everybody will say, yes, want to be part of a team but at the same time i want this to be included or this to be excluded. in a sense how do you get to yes for the team? be it a congress, be it business group, et cetera? >> guest: well, in the end, all decisionmaking and all plans to move forward come down to choices. and they come down to deciding what you think is right, and what you think is important, and what i say to people when they say, well, i'd prefer it not by be that way you have to ask them issue is that one hoff the two,
three, four motor important things? if it is we'll have an arm wrestle. if a notice. late a degree to disagree good let got. and when you get people to boil things down to what really needs to happen in our community, one of the four or five most important things -- the first two or three end up being noncontroversial because people generally agree on those things, or at least on the problems. they may have differences on the solutions. then you end up having real hard arguments about number four and five and those arguments are valuable and in the end a city council, a mayor, a legislator, a community leader, somebody who is running a nonprofit, has to make the final call, but people have to have the decisions. and what i ask for people to do is to stay engaged. even if you disagree with some subset of the divisions that are made, keep the big tour in mind, keep the long term purpose in mind and focus on that and know you're trying to navigate to the long term purpose. if you do that you'll get there
and right things can happen. >> host: why did you leave microsoft? what have you been doing since? >> guest: i left microsoft -- i reached the point in my career there where i either had to sign up for another five years of what would have been i'm sure really interesting work, or decide that after 22 plus years i wanted to do something different. and i decided along with my wife that it was time for me to have more social impact, and to shift my gears from a business and professional impact to social impact. so i spend a significant amount of my time writing, speaking, blogwork and nonprofit boardwork, i also work on a couple of for-profit boards and with a partner of mine i'm a very small business owner in a little gluten free pasta company in seattle, and that's how i keep my hands in the business space. but the meaningful percentage after my time, the majority of my time is spent on the civic
engineering work. >> host: didn't sound like you're involved in tech anymore. >> guest: not directly. one of the boards i'm on is sonof, a technology company. they make the leading wireless hi-fi systems for your home. a fabulous technology company and also a consumer company. so i'm still involved through my boardwork but not actually doing any high-tech work myself. >> host: one of the big public policy issues we have been discussing out here in washington is the net neutrality issue. do you approve of how the fcc approached that? >> guest: well, that's a broad statement. i think the general idea that the network needs to be open is the right idea. i think the idea that you would allow people to put pulls up or charge for different types on content is challenging, and i know if you're a network
provider that's frustrating, but in the end, that the internet and the network and connectivity is such a fundamental part of how information flows and how people work that the idea that you could have some kind of tolls involved to me is a difficult concept for me to get past. i think there's ways in which those network operators can manage their business so that it's more effective for them and they don't get buried in data it if you think of this as a public policy question as opposed to a network provider question, the idea that there should be more open access is a positive for the public and citizens as a whole. >> host: you were formulating and work only xbox other things you did at microsoft. how much time did you spend thinking about regulations in washington? >> guest: um, i would say -- well, in certain areas actually quite a bit. so in the area of content regulation, i spent a lot of
time working on that issue. xbox was the fir video game constance sew that hat parental controls. we were major supporters of the industry rating system. we pushed very hard for every game to be rated, every game to be rated appropriately and effectively and for retailers to enforce the ratings and that really was a very deep legislative process. i spent a lot of time in washington, dc. the entertainment software association, our trade organization, spent lot of anytime d.c. and courts working that issue, and finding the rights balance between first amendment rights and parents' rights to manage the content their kids were seeing was an important issue for me, personally and professionally, and we did a good job finding the right balance between giving parents all the tools they needed and enabling content creators to create the things they dreamed of. >> host: robbie bach writes, i am convinced what we learned the rough and tumble video entertainment game business is translatable to the complex
civic problem wed face at all levels of our nation. hereafter the book jacket, thank you, sir, for being on "the communicators." >> guest: enjoyed it. thank you very much. >> next, look at wasteful suspending by the federal government. then a talk about defense spending with defense undersecretary chief financial officer mike mccord and later a look at efforts by the u.s. government to counter isis propaganda. >> oklahoma senator james lankford released a report on wasteful federal spending, carrying on tradition that was originally started by former oklahoma senator tom coburn.
this highlights example odd excessive expend did tours by the government and providing potential solutions. senator lankford unveiled the report on capitol hill and also took questions from reporters. >> good morning, y'all. thank you for being here. the concern that we're going to lose our focus on debt and spending. there are lot of national issue wes face. all of them very important to us. but the debt issue still remains as one of the primary issued that has to be resolved and can be resolved of. there's this belief it's so large and so difficult to take on, it's not fixable. it is fixable, so, what i want to have is some way we can plain in place and identify these issues. let me say what i mean by this. on our current pace, lefts say we were to actually put into place the budget we have and actually philadelphia fulfill it. in ten years we would be back to balanced. we'd go from 450 bill in deficit
spending to balanced budget in ten years, let's hypothetically say the 11th year we had 50 bill century surplus. if we had a $50 billion surplus in the 11th year, with with did that, we would have to continue to do it every year for the next 460 years to pay off our debt. if we had a 50 bill surplus it would take 460 years to pay off our debt. if we finish out this window. now let's just say be balanced it next year. then it's only a mealsly 380 years. that we have to have a $50 billion surplus. i think we're losing track how difficult that is going to be long term and what needs to be done. every state has a requirement that they're going to balance their budget. they have a budget, they live by that budget, and they function under it. except for the federal government. federal government doesn't ask how much do we have. the federal government asks what would dewant to do? and they just put it into practice.
so there are process issues that need be resolved. so what we're trying to do with this is we're trying to approach and say, here are a set of solutions. this is not an exhaustive list, not everything out there. this is just a list of ideas that we have. and we're throwing those out there. obviously dr. tom coburn made government waste a primary focus. this is not an attempt too carry on his legacy there weren't two tom coburns in the world, bus he said there should be 535 waste books out there, every office should focus in on this. everybody office should look for it and this is our attempt to say, we're going to put this out there and we're going to try to find other offices that are also focuses on this and find areas of mom ground get started on this. the fumble book we have isn't just waste. it's the federal government violated its trust responsibility, waste of taxpayer dollars, programs rife
with fraud. overregulating that raises the cost's goods and services for the consumer and government processes that deceive taxpayers and add to those family's debt responsibilities. with each issue we also lay out a solution. this is not matter of here's a problem but there are no answers. we try to lay out specific answers as well with that. we also highlight some examples where we think the government is addressing some of these issues. this not just a matter of all complaint and no solution. there are some things happening correctly. for instance, some of the duplication, a report the gao put out, we have made some progress on the duplication. the department of justice just in the past couple of years has cut their conferencing budget by two-thirds. and they're to be commented for that there are -- commended for that there are parts where different parts of the government are taking this on but it's difficult to find the ways and things turning around. one thing we proposed a is bill we had we passed in the house and passed in committee and want
to bring forward, called the taxpayers' right to know. every single individual in this room and across the united states should be able to pull up any government program, see if there's duplication in other areas, should cost of employees for the program, how the program is evaluated if at all, and what could be done to be able tom could inbit? but you can't do that. that's not a searchable database that anyone can have access. to that would happen every outside group, eve think tank, every member of the press to identify how the government spends it money. so we're pushing forward on that to say this would be much easier for every american to be able to identify this and to be able too help determine some of those solutions in the days ahead. ...
>> spec like the earned income tax credit. the largest area of friday year after year almost $18 billion of fraud just for this year that year after year is on the highest something we should be able to evaluate as a government senator carter has laid out a bill why can these social security administration share this with other entities? we have millions of numbers that are out there that are
then vulnerable to fraud and waste with individuals voting, getting jobs, of filing tax reports, that should be resolved and cayenne be we are losing billions of dollars in the process. national park service did a study on what do bugs do if you turn on a light in a rural place. everybody can tell you what happens when you turn on a light in the dark place. these are common sense things we need to evaluate why are we doing this? we focus on what should the shut -- the federal government to? it is not anti-regulation peace but they do have real effects on americans. the court's authority stopped the corps of engineers said they don't want to implement this role would dash this rule what is happening with community
banks coming out of dodd/frank has an effect and in urban areas there are multiple banks and entities where she's a really wonder to enroll america bin you make a very hard for those individuals. things like that don't make common sense it is no secret i had a lot of frustration with the of mandatory programs the crime victims' fund has been used year after year as an offset it is a washington budget game to be removed entirely from the budget process. if you move that a couple of months than suddenly you are back in balance with you have 10 years plus one month it is no savings at all.
those don't help us get back to balance. that needs to end. we just need the seriousness to take it on. >> talk about your own office spending at 535 people are you comfortable with your own office spending? >> you have mentioned this before you don't like that i have a chief of staff locally based instead of washington d.c.-based. >> it is and that i like it but the money involved but the thousands of dollars to fly him back and forth to put him up in a hotel. >> if it was washington d.c.-based you fly back to
this date so it is a decision that you make we return to a hundred $50,000 last year under budget and a first-year freshman office that is incredibly hard to do. >> are you comfortable there is no waste? >> i am comfortable anybody to come in to do oversight in our office that is reasonable. our salaries and issues to make sure we take care of people with our taxpayer dollars. but oversight is always a good thing. >> publicly funded stadiums or subsidize stadiums i believe the arena was made with public funds. >> but the tax credit for
the of the tax subsidy why are the people of oklahoma paying for a stadium somewhere else or to offset the costs new york are people in other states funding in oklahoma? that is a local priority with a region they need to pay for. >> what about clawback can be retrieved some of that to hold accountable? >> it is difficult to hold people to account if there is overspending in some areas not the contractor or the government employee not just the head hunting to work very hard in a
difficult situation. warda major mistake is made they should have been held responsible. is a good paying to do that locally. so the hope we have is to address this for the agency's long-term. and what process can be put in place to put those requirements down. >> do you see things that could be used with government spending? >> the budget deal is the
social security disability. is extending a couple of pieces but it doesn't to reform but not some of the things that our hard. the president has even stated with the same time they get unemployment insurance if you are receiving unemployment insurance you can be employed if you're receiving disability -- disability cannot be employed you cannot receive them both simultaneously that is believed the dollar's and a way to get back to balance then to live within our means. >> what is the basis for cutting?
>> it is to be efficient. people want their government to beat the bishop. it is just identifying being said about federal priorities if we have a master file with billions of dollars in individual said are filing taxes to find out somebody has already filed with another identity n to fix a broken problem. >> with the omnibus funding bill that is due with the resolve.
that there is no funding for planned parenthood that bill. with the shooting in colorado doesn't make it more politically difficult or change the dynamics? >> with planned parenthood is an ongoing issue it isn't new. to said what amount of dollars is the single largest provider it may take years but it needs to be done. >> i don't think it will be an issue and then with the single largest provider of
abortion in the country but this weekend in colorado in the way to protest is to kill people. i can assure you if they kill adults they're not standing up for children at the same time. so we will find out more in the days ahead. >> what about the reconciliation in package? so that could be used as of fulcrum. >> there are multiple different vehicles.
>> good morning director of the defense budget analysis and senior fellow here and will come to this cybermonday, monday after thanksgiving with the wonderful washington d.c. whether cooperating it is my pleasure to introduce the deity comptroller undersecretary mccord dealing with all financial matters before becoming comptroller he served as the principal deputy under the secretary of defense and before that served on the hill for 21 years in the senate armed services committee and before that at the congressional budget office. so is my pleasure to welcome him this morning.
[applause] >> i totally forgot it is cybermonday we should set up something if you want to buy me something. [laughter] but it is of pleasure to be here in this new building and though it isn't brand new but with this ousted in the institution i was in this very room and was honored to be here as the board chairman and then hosted by your president as of little younger i could count john as my mentors.
to talk about the budget agreement the bottom line is the good deal for urd dod because what it does the actual funding is a hopeful sign to return to more problem-solving ruth i. a tenure in this position of dod. and want to start at where their resources have been since then 11 the total resources with the defense resources that doubled with this deal we are getting
and with high intensity operations but up from where we have been. to talk with the budget deal going for word what we have been net to at dod it is the thing is we have been trying to achieve. with that challenge that we face today with that dimension of national-security to cover major portions of the globe geographically talking about europe and away we were not before as well as of broad range of conflict from cyberto high end to the counter insurgency your counterterrorism.
but to be on the demand side. but the caps that were never meant to be in the first place so we can get resources above that level for what we will talk about today but it is a strong gravitational pull on the resources. but this is in part the katchis id allows some flexibility and allowing them to assess the big
picture. without having to examine the fundamental assumptions. but with the diversity and would say requires us to do a lot of balancing. but in that period of time to have more congressional support that they still feel is necessary to have a lower priority issues to move those legacy issues but to
have been stability we have some short-term deals and one of the things that we have lived to a after outside this area but little by little to where we have the worst record in this administration announces a first term of ronald reagan and i did the math a couple months ago. and got their attention this is the sixth full fiscal years we have completed. but 24 months out of six
years. sometimes three months or six months so with that fiscal year to execute new ideas. that situation so it did do better but not what we wanted them but i would say one of the famous that we have been pretty consistent of the f weiss 60 budget in terms of what we're trying to accomplish with this strategy a strategic thought and the amount of our
were we caved in a little lower than that. to have that strategic choice given the new reality of the budget control act so what is that the acceptable risk level. with that area of the line on the top and the other lines on the bottom. ever since we have been telling people for what was covered by the grave risk and. that is from the fis 16 and f-117 budget said.
and to be a substantial portion. look at in terms of a point of view. so we live with the lower level of resources. so we had telegraphed that very well. and we had been pretty consistent with than for those budget discussions we were needed. and then to ride to the second day of bed new deal that we have passed.
the difference between the red line and then every year since then. before the budget deal was an active. and then with the solid red line and then to get through three different budget deals. them with the budget balanced budget act of 15. so this is the point that jumps out. we have never gotten the worst case or with the president's budget was
written and with that budget request but other than a bad it is a negotiation in every year. is where the budget control act is that is a painfully slow process. so i will take you back but they look at where we started and then the worst case and and looking now $1 trillion per cut. where are we in that range with no relief whatsoever? it is close to though worse case with those budget deals.
the what they call the first 500 billion to recognize what we would have to do no matter what that we owed $500 billion. the green line shows where we ended up with us budget act so we have relief so far over six years. but that is the difference between the green line and the red line. afield the budget control act is the key driver of the strong gravitational pull if you look at the big picture
that is something that congress agreed even with this super committees to succeed without offset we're still pretty close to the bottom of the bucket and it has been a dominant force. to walk through the resource level that we have to take this down when the super committee failed with the new budget deal and i can show this best on the next chart.
that there is no deal at the bottom of the box we will have gotten $70 billion. if we have no further relief after this deal. so the al years of our plan with that out your profile there is about $100 billion at stake the difference between what we see in the out years so that is more relief than we could achieve in the first six there is a lot at stake but now more or less we cannot predict the
next budget that we presented to congress it is still in madrid billion dollars that is the best case based on what it is. so the range is much closer if you think about the changes of world events with the constructs in terms of political discussion or the discretionary budget as the whole. why do we have a budget deal?
partly because of the dispute of the maneuver over the a resolution so just to refresh you in the end that we were right to hold up for deal suddenly have it to your topline and help for defense and nondefense government side of the budget not just dod part so secretary carter was not just to get it fixed for one year but would doj and the players so we did and did all the money we wanted but
with our reluctance to go for the easy solution. and with the few observations what it does it does not do. and that seems like not a great accomplishment but still for economic security you don't take that for granted. that is important for us. and then figure out how to meet the targets to learn about the appropriators how the topline should be adjusted.
and then to have the pre-agreed targets it is an odd concept but because of the last point to alter the rules in the relationship with the funding for this two years period through oco and that is in the discussion. the only offset down the road that requires that future spectrum so down the road in a few years and now so that is something we have
it makes us whole. and it was very important to secretary carter with one man in a light bulb that was not his idea of success and i would say from those that we work with on a daily basis oco read the was directed at the state department functions. it is a way that i would be very uncomfortable so they will be much more leveraged and a lot more certain headed into the administration. but to give targets specific to dod with the nsa and others it doesn't actually
provide us monday so with that appropriation bill on time so therefore it does not prevent a shutdown on the appropriation bill. although it is a helpful sign if we don't have that situation again, . so it continues the pattern of short-term relief but doesn't guarantee anything so the threat of a sequester is coming back well lit is still above all it is not removed by the budget deal. you can make assumptions of it is good or bad that now
extended to the spending cap. probably the top priority is we did not want to see the caps extended further because the decade of the '20s we need additional resources from where we are today and that would be one of the worst times we could imagine that something that you did not see is you could make judgments with the oco spending will be repeated or not but it doesn't tell us the future of that to make it work as the compromise in
the future. so that is one of the key things to keep an eye on. the european reinsurance initiative started on the little over a year ago. it was comparable but we will remove that at. we are still debating but it will be significant but there is say budget deal the biggest asian had a slightly different concept. so here is the reassurance
and if it is not clear at all. and then not to be bit picky but as we look to the future. so this chart can illustrate where the budget was. where the caps were in the red. but the oco relief you have read about compared to the level that we rat with the 60 budget. because the president decided to extend the entire
secretary carter's priorities he has been very clear about how to have talent even more than what we have today with innovation of our investments in the way technology is delivered to day how we compete for talent in seoul many realms. secretary carter is focused on getting things done but the the the successors. i wish i could say i have predictability and i have that of course, we know some of the big issues on the plate that we alluded to to recapitalize the nuclear deterrent.
and those for full retirement. i will show you a chart with the long-term budget outlook is and what i call the ability to pay. and by 2020 the non-defense the budget is above the line of what is covered by the revenue. by 2035 the entire discretionary budget is above though wide and that describes to buy but did resources they did not the
$3 billion above the cap proposal first of all, and with the fourth year in your role but you notice i haven't connected and i left that gap there. in addition the calendar year me be in the fall there'll be another budget deal based on past history. and my successors will be starting from a place where renegotiating.
even to head over there to jump back up. this year if it was difficult to achieve it would have been impossible to where we take we need to go with 16 and 17. this is doable for what was accomplished but it does show it is possible. it set this up fairly well for the future given the all factors considered to have the negotiation for the defense budget over the last two or three years that is an important point. finally over the last couple years of what i have seed
with the feeling for these negotiations what i call growing up with politics in defense is up high water mark. second the point i made that we have never gotten everything that we wanted and then there is some relief that comes in a one or two years dose's. it is like christmas you know, is coming but you have to wait. we have had to common to your deals. -- a two-year deal so that topline is it dictated
heavily with the stronger gravitational pull with the combined desire of the president and the joint chiefs. we have had some success but it has been a fight there is no guarantee of success except for a tiny little bit they have had to be paid for. the constructs is a supply of resources with the national security requirements of the country. so for people to come up with resources generally has not included much revenue
such shows it is a dominant factor to set those defense resource priorities and then on the funding with the exit this administration for them to do better on that front is to have more resources out of oco but that will not be achieved under this deal but that is one big we left it is important variable to the future. that is my summary and that is the key aspects of resources we have looked the last couple of years to leave the couple points peggy in particular.
but that is the shared goal. >> so we can have an idea it is about the $15 billion reduction from last year's request so should we expect any major program terminations and? for the modernization you program? to route up the production or do we see deviations? >> one of the ways to accommodate and of
course, to have a logo of scheduled dynamics but there will be some slowdown in some places just to get all the new inflation factors with the military retirement to sign a few days ago is taken into account that is the day huge near-term impact to finalize the determination that may be a savings for us to have something that updates for the retirees without making the situation in the worse. >> space is f-117?
>> i think it will be kind of flat with the impact is another point that i may attilas you that topline with the appropriations committee i would not expect any major changes because that does not give you the demand to say i need to shrink my forced to accommodate because based on history it is out there but history shows you don't live with the worst case we already know what that is we
just don't know the best case so in terms to have the leverage we don't know what we're living with because it is such a hard thing to do given the demands on the force nobody wants to they don't have to. >> turned to oco funding to talk about my greedy in the interim requirements this sounds like a euphemism to be but going in opposite directions with the budget deal congress is done similar things in the past
so with that alliance and has been blurred because there is no the apple distinction and what counts and how this will be used to the future. >> i would say yes but you are right the desire was as we ramp down that presents in iraq to get us out of that combat mission in afghanistan is seems we have built up some dependencies over the years we with the course of least resistance this gets us out by 2020 and
, it does send a few signals to the future. it's obvious to me at least why it ended up this way and you could change the deal without having to get fundamentally committed to the future with a long-term budgets this way but not ideal for us but compromise, this to me was part of a compromise and maybe it's not the way we would ever admit though we had the desire to ramp down and we had a desire to ramp
up on it but it was a more temporary thing about what people wanted to be. go me think about it there's only a couple of ways to fund contingency activities. you can give the executive branch the money up front with not a lot of strings but you can give it to them upfront with a lot of strings or you can wait until after-the-fact congress a bill that they have not much choice except to pay so before-and-after and what degree of strings there are only so many ways you can skin a cat. so i think we may well see some formulation of how to pay for contingency funding although i couldn't guess what that might be at this point but ultimately there are so many models that you can do. >> woodstock about something, the idea keeps coming up a lot of times. dod has not yet had it.
it's been in the works for a while. can you give us a bit of an update on where it stands in terms of getting to an audit and we have a pretty smart audience hear why is it hard for dod? >> we have a goal that we set out that congress came back and agreed on a legislature that we would submit the entire department for a full audit of all the statements that go with it in 2017 so that's this fall of 2017. there will be a difference cfo most likely when that happens and secretary panetta felt that five years ago was too far away to have an interim goal without an interim goal he felt we needed an interim goal to reestablish one to submit an audit on our current year statement for the fall, for this last fall, the fall of 2014.
2015, i'm sorry so we have done now submitted audits for the army, navy, air force. one of those have come back with a disclaimer which is pretty much what we expected the first timeout and we were elected to get the other two as well but we are making a lot of progress. one of the things i was talking about on the topline aspect is that we had in terms of what resources were needed and what size the force needed we have been fairly consistent over the last couple of years which has helped us. the same is true on the outside. we had a plane that we have stuck to the framework on and we have been trying to work down the to-do list of things to get them done but we haven't changed the plan a lot in the last couple of years and we are not going to change the plan this time either just because we have a disclaimer. it will not surprise us finally get started on these so we have the benefit that everybody knows what the plan is in working together on the plan. it's going to be a journey that
will last beyond my time. we are making progress. why is it difficult for us? i think largely our size and complexity is one thing and i think people will appreciate how big we are. we have millions of employees. our budget is the size, pretty good-sized economy in belgium or the netherlands but we are not a small organization at all. we have i think something like 25 million acres of land that we have half a million buildings. so that's not the main reason. i think the main reasons are probably two. one, we have so many systems that were built to do something else that needs work together and produce information in a way that auditors can use and verify which is not what they were built for and where to big to lowball our systems.
we have to put together all kinds of logistics with financial systems and that's been a difficult effort in second i think culturally we are an organization that's all about getting the mission done. this has not been and probably never will be seen as the department's primary mission. the primary mission is to defend the nation and fight and win wars so the trick has been to get our culture to see this as a mission that needs to get done even though we will never be the top mission in the department but to bring the same attitude as this is something to get done. we are about accomplishing the mission and that is what we have been achieving over the last couple of years. but it's hard to measure and i will tell you some members of the congress have said they will concede that you guys actually have a plan that makes sense and you appear to be following your plan and you are moving the ball
down the field but is not in end zone and that's what counts as a result. it's hard to assess progress many don't get the ball into the end zone and i will tell you progress is there. one evidence of that to me is we have had by my count zero august this year which is surprising. of course there's a lot going on a pretty high importance. as we talked about we have less resources. we have headquarters that. we have financial cuts to absorb so one thing you might say was something that we may need to dial back on there as been strong resistance in the services to doing that so to me there are a couple of signs that culturally this is a mission want to get done. on it to be pushed. we don't have to be beaten. we don't have to have hearings are the things to make it.
we have internalized this now is a goal but it's difficult to get there for us given our size and complexity and the need to get so many parts of the community and everybody else working together. i think we are on the right track and i think history will look back and it will take a couple of more years to get this going. my credit goes to bob hale who says you can't learn it on the beat. you have to get on in it to really learn and have independent auditors to say here's what you're doing right and here's not what you're doing right. we are going to learn at a more rapid rate even though the initial results will be you weren't good enough to get a clean on it. >> you need a couple of failures >> i think you do. and you need to stop practicing and not doing test prep is what we have been doing a lot of as
you take the s.a.t.. you want to prepare but at some point you need to find out if you are good enough and where you are not good not. >> it sounds like a lot of the challenges an i.t. issue. the legacy data systems talking to each other. >> and business processes too. if you have a bad process and put a new computer system you still have a bad process. >> the other thing that i hear people talking about is why shouldn't you do a budget increase? clear up something here. once you pass an audit what is the likelihood you find $100 billion sitting around here and now we have all the money we need? are we going to see anything like that happening from an audit? >> that's a good question. i find the premise of that viewpoint or a question like that understandable but a little frustrating.
the fact that we haven't had an audit our business practices are not what they should be. doesn't mean that we don't know what we do at the money. you occasionally hear that this characterization that we don't know where the money is or what to do with the money. we have among other things we have 535 members on the board of directors as well as every contract. if congress gives us money x billion dollars to buy those people know if we did or didn't buy those things. paying our people that are budget between military and civilian pay and benefit. if people weren't getting paid we would know about it. >> it's a misnomer to think their resources, nobody knows what happens to them. the issue of the audit is to demonstrate going from the order to the invoice to the expenditure, everything connected that auditors when they find -- paul rec rids they
find it meets auditing records. it's not the wild west where nobody knows what's going on. that being said if you do have your business processes at the point where you are passing audit there will be efficiencies and there will be things you discover about yourself. but that's true of audits. that's true of any number of efficiencies. i recall when i -- i see ray sitting in the front row and when his boss confirmed with me early in 2001 he said any organization can be run more efficiently. we are not saying, that's why you do a business. there's no pretense here that we are perfect. we recognize it's as true today as it was 50 years ago. this is one of many efforts one that i think has broad support and people recognize we had an audit.
others have not had a not at that's a well organization should be divesting some of its legacy to that new capabilities and so i grant that people, some of them, it's not hard to be for passing audit and someday things who want to do. and finding the resources as well as trying to make ourselves better in terms of i.t. processes, business processes audit and infrastructure and other things. iis consideration that when we are trying to do all these things at once we know we need to do better on process and satisfy an auditor but it's just as true when we say we need to have less restrictions and we need support for base closure we need -- we have a proposal he
think takes a lot of sense to consolidate our tri-care system. there are consideration as well. all of these things are things you that don't pay off the next day but they pay off down the road. again i'm talking about in the 20s. there was a bill that was true in the early 60s and was true under reagan. that bill is going to come in the 20s so investments that we make today weatherbee base closure or something else and save us money. it won't help meet the budget target but it can still be important to help us save money down the road. the audit is one of those long-term efforts. >> quickly before band i want to own put it up for questions. >> i am troubled by you thinking that your budgetary future in the midterm five years out is all that in certain.
bca is not this free-floating entity. it's a reflection of a generational battle over the state of society and thing going on for a decade or two and it will go on for another two, three or four presidential cycles. in the meantime we have got this one-time fix and the guy that was supposed to be so charitable we do know what the shape of the linux like. you get 50% of the delta between the defense request and you had that amount to both and we got lucky this time. you are better off. >> we know that you are getting some of it takes. you are getting the compensation stuff. not as fast as you would like but you are getting the apaches move. you probably won't get them cancel until you stopped applying them and that's a problem. it's not that all that
unpredictable. he said the demands it and doesn't justify anything that's hard to reverse of the force structure, fair enough. but it seems to me you could reasonably serve eyes -- a mise we will follow this pattern -- we will surmise that you will get the total. is there nothing less than force structure cuts but more than sliding the last payday of the fiscal year two october 21? is there nothing in the mid-range that you can do structurally to say hey the skimmer is in a relevant benchmark anymore. here's something we can do in the short to medium-term timeframe. the structural adaptation to what we know is coming down the track. >> okay, i would grant your point that through 21 you will be somewhere at the midpoint or maybe a little better. other than the fact that we have a change of administration which
adds additional uncertainty and we might have a president who thinks -- we will know more about that in the year. there are things that we can do and they tend to involve looking at the loan priority programs were things that can be re-face. my point was that particularly on the ground for side it's been proposed about shrinking the ground forces and there's a lot of angst about that so i don't think you realistically can achieve that without getting a clear demand signal about what you want. that's been part of the frustration at not only do we have the department but the defense has had to think our defense committees have taken
the vision that the ground forces should not shrink in the delta ground forces should not shrink but a lot don't agree with them. so that's been somewhat of an uncertain point. i think really the uncertainty is more about beyond the bca. you are right. and again we have a lot of concerns. it's not a problem that we can do much in the sapna straight about what's going to happen in 2020. in a period that starts after the next administration first term but it is something that because we tend to do so much long-term thinking that we look at, when i say that in particular when we start modernizing the submarine which we started in 21 it's going to stretch and both are so expensive that i'm sure if any of you have followed the navy the navy has expressed concerns
and so you prove to me it's not going to come out of my ship the link budget then i'm going to keep waving my arms around until somebody notices how we are going to solve it in right now it's probably not in our power to tell how it's going to be solved. we are the stages of socializing the problem. the committees will get it already but trying to get it more broadly and start talking about what might be a solution. so i think that longer-term, the easy solution for dod would have bump up the end resources that will last 15 straight years. that's probably not realistic though that the first thing we need to do is please make sure people understand our problems so when our budget negotiations that is understood and that's one thing we really did appreciate from this budget deal. it's a very easy thing and i've been around the budget seen a long time, to just say i will pay for a dollar today by a more
restrained in 2024. we were grateful that didn't happen and it leaves the field more neutral for that future period but again in terms of just dealing with the rest of the period the levers are out there. you are right. there is compensation and there is the size of the force and modernization but readiness i don't think there's going to be that much of a lever on the table. i don't think anybody really wants the force whatever does to be any less ready. if anything we would like to rebuild. i think that lever is less available to us. on compensation as you say we have gotten some progress on what i call the direct pay site. we have supportive pay raise and housing for proposed some and less so on things like health care. health care is more complicated. there's a lot of talk. next year the committees are
going to dive in to health care so that will be a hopefully something we can all work together on to build off of the consensus retirement this year. to make -- we already seen some progress in controlling those costs. i think there's more that we can do there. so yeah one last question. >> hi. you had mentioned the coming increase to eri in half by 17 budget. i was wondering if you could tell us how members of the u.s. military should expect that increased to manifest itself and also sent to isolate is proven to be a threat to european security how should americans and europeans and members of the military expect to counter isil budgetary commitments to increase in fy17? >> okay.
let me start with the european side. i think what we are looking at is a more robust version of what we have been doing. exercising, having more presence there and not going back to the old days of having printed thousand people permanently stationed there necessarily but having, contending the higher level of presence especially with their middle eastern and european partners. i think that's a different way of looking at this years the more permanent investment whether it be preconditioning for basing for additional presence and additional posturing capability in europe that was the ever more longer-term longer-term nature. what we are not talking about would be having the u.s. department of defense help beef up the immigration system or the influx of people into europe
from the middle east. that kind of thing is something the europeans need to handle for themselves. we are talking here on the european side a more traditional military role. so they isil effort i think will be dealt with as a military operation and european military operation. the connection between the two and the refugee flow is not something that would be on our plate to work so i think you will see these things tend to be , the european side will tend to look at where can we do something that's a little more substantial and give it a little more time to plan in this budget whereas on the isil cited think it will tend to be more operationally focused on operations in the middle east. it is. >> i want to thank you for coming out on this day in a lot of great information shared so thank you for coming to cfa.
>> roberto fernandez joins us to discuss the effort of social media and on line messaging campaign which fernandez previously served as coordinators of the state department first gigi counterterrorism communications. explain what that office does and how it tries to achieve its goals. >> guest: there was a small operation founded in 2011 under the leadership of secretary clinton to try to begin to address to look at the question of al qaeda propaganda or the great rise of isis. so the idea was there would be a one-stop shop that would focus on that issue. they have always said how important this was for them and for the west to the u.s. government maybe we treated with less importance or significance
than our adversaries have. that was the idea. >> host: what are their resources? >> guest: since i've retired from the government i don't know what they have done for the last year. was i is a small operation. he was always tiny actually. i'd testified before the house in 2012 and the chairman said you are the head of the islamist organization and whoever test mice before this committee, $5 million a year, about 40 a people some of them detail ease from other parts of the government, handful of people focusing on social media operators in the language of arabic and/or do somali and added a tiny english program in the end end. that's what it basically was. >> host: u.s. in february. why? >> guest: iowa's retiring from the government after 32 years. >> host: what was your thought on this day that department as
you were leaving especially with isis and what has become such a post to media campaign. >> guest: i think the problem is the center was started at a time when a lot of people in washington in the administration and outside of the were declaring victory. there's that unfortunate victory moment of president bush's own aircraft carrier that we all talk about. this administration's victory moment lasted three years between the death of bin laden and the fall of mosul. that almost corresponds with the genesis of these so i noticed there was strong support at the beginning when secretary denton was there and then after she left i think there was less support. it became very what the size so was perfect that i was retiring anyway. >> host: the center for strategic counterterrorism, you can check it out i might -- on line state.gov and check out
their web site and check out their social media pages on twitter and facebook. we will show you a few during a case of this conversation pit of her peers want to colonize questions about this battlefield that the united states is fighting isis on alberto fernandez is our guest for the next 40 minutes. democrats (202)748-8000 plugged in 202 same for eight 8001. if you are outside the u.s. 2027488003 in speaking of this battlefield how does each side when? what is the strategy on this different battlefield? >> first of all i have said it and others that it needs to be said over and over. isis propaganda is unprecedented it's powerful. they use it in very interesting ways. they are the most successful terrorist group in the use of media. without exaggerating that's how
how -- sounds very daunting that we are center member we talk about propaganda it's connected to the real world. isis propaganda goes to the roof when mosul falls and when baghdadi declares himself kiva so there's of direction -- connection. the rise of the islamic state is what gives the propaganda power and credibility and that power and that strength. not the other way around. sometimes we confuse the mediums for the message in the entity putting it up. >> host: here's an example of a message and you can get a sense of how they are trying to counter what isis is putting on line. >> we spoke to an islamic defector in turkey, his voice disguise. i joined them out of fear he
says. some have joined it really believe killing and whipping is the way to spread islam. when they discover that's all wrong they cannot leave. the defector said he was an amir or commander and gave a knife to his 8-year-old son. he made him cut off a prisoner said he told me. he said the son of enemy or schiffler early. ♪ ♪
>> host: this is part of the state department's think again, turn away campaign. how effective is this messaging and getting through? >> guest: look first of all we are facing a colossus. we are ridiculously outnumbered by isis in social media that we need to recognize that. second of all, the challenge always in propaganda of messaging is how do you measure something that doesn't happen? have you measured the person as he says and says i'm not going to become a terrorist. so that's inherently difficult but this is good. think it's a good effort. it's a worthwhile effort. certainly the voices of defect there's over cantors come up of victims have been shown empirically to be powerful so this is not bad. there are couple of problems. one of them is that you don't know what the person actually is because they are afraid for their life. so you don't know their names and you don't see their face. isis propaganda is about me
talking to you and openly declaring my views and my loyalty and all of that but one of the challenges we face is that defect nurse, people who have left the terrorist organization are going to be a little leery about going on television. >> host: how much of a learning curve has there have been to get to something that you say is good at this point? have there have been failures on the way? >> lots of failures but the ftp was created because of failure. it was created because of the recognition that after 10 years after 9/11 the u.s. government and indeed the west had not done such a good job in countering terrorist propaganda. i think it's good today. i think the working level people , if they can be freed from puts clinton grants from the white house are doing good work but it always is and always
has been a very small operation to what you need is a network. the islamic state has a network of propaganda. it doesn't have one entity so right now strangely enough we are outgunned and out and in that space. another thing about the u.s. government, i'm talking about you take everybody in the world who is messaging and that anti-aces space and they are still outnumbered compared to what isis brings to that battle. >> host: alberto fernandez coordinator for the king department center forced her to do terrorism communication. rod on our line for independents you are on our line with alberto fernandez. >> caller: i think we give legitimacy to the islamic stablemate call them islamic state. why can we come up with another term? the organization i think is what some people call them in the middle east and it is a battle of words. for me use the islamic --
there's a huge risk and our domestic policies on islamic terrorists. i would imagine these people like being called islamic terrorists. i will take your answer off the air. >> guest: there are either called the islamic state organization, that's what al-jazeera calls them or they are called diets da'ish which is more hostile and what the islamic state calls them. you have to be careful about the language but you also have to be careful not to be afraid of your shadow. if the islamic state has a powerful claim to being a jihadists islamist organization, and it does, you need to challenge them on that territory. maybe the u.s. government can't do that but somebody needs to challenge them on that. sometimes i see some of the propaganda in the middle east
and they will say things like we don't understand why the islamic states did this. why did they blow up these temples in palmyra? actually their ideas taken from son of islam which is the reason for them being blown up. we need to be careful not about stigmatizing people and not about being dumb in these battles but we also need to take the ideological fight to them and that space. the u.s. government is not the one to do that. >> host: with the thing that could be because there are nongovernment actors getting above. the on line group saying they are taking on the islamic state. >> guest: takes a network to find a network so you need more of everything. you need the direct approach which is a thing that cfpb did. you need the voice of muslim ngos. you need the voices of young people. you need the voices of people who are sarcastic or annoying.
it's not one thing. that's what isis does. isis propaganda is not one thing. it's a network producing a friday of different materials for different audiences. >> host: our line for democrats, i'll leave. all the good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question is, i am a muslim and i am an american. my problem i'm having with american policy is now we are in an election season. we should stop calling these people islamic states. they are not a state. they're just a bunch of crazy people. we have just given them credit. the saudi government that america is supporting is going to see more of this problem.
they can tell people to go fight these cowards or they will let the americans or the western world, anytime there's a problem they will come for the western world for help. >> guest: thank you. i think those are some good points. the question of who are they and what do they represent, there is no doubt that with the islamic state putting it in quotation marks tries to do is to appeal to a specific salafi and that worldview is bigger than the islamic state. for decades and the caller mentioned saudi arabia or for decades governments in the region have moved the needle and a certain direction towards salafism, particular type of salafism, jihadist salafism. the islamic state image, the
islamic state appealed to muslims as part of a larger battle about authority, that credibility, about leadership in the muslim world and especially in the sunni-arab muslim world. >> host: let's go to kingsford david is waiting on our line. >> caller: good morning. i would like to know, the united states has a leader of isis in prison. they put him in charge of the prisoners so they wouldn't riot. the previous problem was when they disbanded the iraqi army they put the officers in with this leader. the united states wonders why they're having so much trouble when they had the chance to keep this guy. thank you sir. >> guest: i would just say that when baghdadi was briefly there for a few months he was not a leader. he was a radical cleric,
university student. he was the person that was not a good guy but he was not a leader. he was not the leader of the islamic state. so we need to be precise about the details. >> host: let's bring it back to the conscious -- conversation about countering violent extremism. can you talk about that takes your? you mentioned trolling individual engagement one-on-one, not really effective for a good use of u.s. resources here. why not try to engage the individual one-on-one? >> that's not a bad idea. the problem is you just don't have the numbers. consider george talking about twitter alone you have an average of 40 to 50,000 pro-isis accounts. as cftc there were three in arabic. altogether -- cf. tb had six
twitter handles. isis had 40 or 50,000 of which may be 3000 -- there is something which is really important and how is dave became radicalized. there is a radicalization is that occurs on a one-to-one basis, and me talking to you. that's something which needs to be explored. that's something that may be government can do but government can do with private sector picking the people that are going to have those long conversations with people who are on the fence about whether or not to become terrorists or not. social workers are people who work with gangs or with other pathological tendencies that people tend to half, that's something that needs to be dumped as cftc never had that mandate. >> host: this is one of the state department arabic twitter handles. following 3400 people, about 5000 followers.
let's do the islamic state groups get in terms of followers? is just a few followers for details -- for 50,000? the way it works on social media specially on twitter is you have a central note that puts out the propaganda and then it's taken from most places by the fan boys, by this network of people who then expand it, amplify it, re-tweeted, shouted out etc. so you are talking about tens of thousands of people doing it. >> host: our guest for about the next 30 minutes or so is alberto fernandez former coordinator of the state department sent a first teacher counterterrorism communication. taking calls and questions. jonathan waiting in vero beach florida, line for democrats. >> caller: mr. fernandez thank you very much for taking my call and thank you c-span. mr. fernandes i don't envy you that you don't know where we can reach these kids at night be
thinking about rolling over to the other side and finding the appeal of isis overwhelming. my understanding is that they are trying to capture a clash of civilizations with west against islam and last week i read that the arab emirates cannot induce their own population into joining the armed forces. the co-elements of the colombian army is going to be there expeditionary force. if these folks can't be induced to defend themselves and have to lend out that kind of capability that the people don't want to be part of, i don't see how we can get past that. that would seem to really help them in their idea that it's us against them which is a real problem here because it's not. also my understanding from all of the numbers that they -- gore could probably take care of isis inside of about three months. my understanding also is that
isis was born in the jails of egypt come the jails of jordan and those jails are still bulging. these people could be replaced. where does this and mr. fernandes? >> several questions there. thanks john for the questions. >> guest: it's important to first he makes is the radicalization process is very impersonal very individualized. it varies from person to person. when you think about it in your own life one person is a republican another person as a democrat in one person follows this religious tradition another one follows another. it's not unusual that some people at different lifestyles. the radicalization process is very intimate. that's a problem if you try a one-size-fits-all strategy. it's important to be clear about these things. do you be allegedly is getting these colombian troops not to fight vices but to fight and those long drawnout war in yemen
where basically they are fighting in yemen and they don't have enough soldiers so does nothing to do with isis fight for the clash of civilization. >> host: let's go to hot springs national park arkansas, line for republicans. go ahead. our caller is not there. how is waiting in winter haven florida on our line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you this morning? >> good, go ahead hewer on with mr. fernandez. >> caller: mine is more of a statement i think it's kind of radical but you have got to fight fire with fire. you can't fight vices and just kind of mess around. you have got to go in there, take care of business. america builds a strong military
and show them what we can do. and just take care of the problem. if you hurt a few people on the way, that's too bad because otherwise they are not going to fight. the iraqis are going to fight. the saudi arabians aren't going to fight so if we have to put an end to isis, put an end to it and don't play with it. if you have to go over and take them out of jordan prisons get rid of them. it's time that america put its foot down. thank you. >> host: mr. fernandez? >> guest: well, there's something to what he says in his very colorful fashion. isis depends on victory. a huge part of their method -- message to people as we are the winners. where there pointers by permission of god. god is last our victories. so a narrative based so
intimately on victory is fragile in the sense that it needs to be seen as winning. if you can show them as losing, if you can show them as losing territory, if you see cities that they had following to somebody else that is the way of puncturing a big hole in their narrative. they talk about conquering the world, putting the black flag on the vatican or the white house for kobani that's a way of weakening their narrative. >> host: ddn twitter asks issa shows how effective propaganda can be unified to follow up on that is this a historical lesson that the united states has had to relearn? >> guest: perhaps. i think there was a tendency perhaps after the end of the cold war to think that the western model the liberal democratic free-market model, because it's inherently right that we were just going to rain
worldwide and what we have seen is the rise of new authoritarians. and some old authoritarians from china and russia and isis and iran at address. but the idea that we can sit on her hands on hollywood madison avenue that sector would take care of it has been proven to be wrong. >> host: let's go to pennsylvania where brooklyn is waiting on our line for independents. good morning you are on with alberto fernandez. >> caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. mr. fernandez in your opening remarks you mentioned the new left cf. cc that it'd become politicized and i wonder if you could tell us more about that? >> guest: there's always a tendency to political interference in anything that becomes important. basically what you are doing is unimportant there is less interference. i size cfpb became more important a danger seeded with a
spicy but the white house but that's not a problem of cfpb. i'm not saying anything that's a secret. in this administration the power of fantasy of the national security council of interfering into the minutia and the daily work of other government agencies including the state department is really probably at a historic high looking back in history. >> host: can you give us an example of how that could reseen on the ground level? >> guest: that's probably a better question for the people with that knowledge to answer that but there was a lot of micromanaging in the last few months on the white house including flaky things like maybe we should have another name or another label for or something like that as if that would be the issue. so there is joseph micromanaging from nfc and the state department and other parts of
u.s. government notches one operation. >> host: let's go to maryland on our line firm republicans. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. you seem extremely knowledgeable about the subject to speak. you have several dialects so i think you would x&o stan was going on in the middle east. this idea that we want to out propaganda people in the middle east is probably not going to work. in order to radicalize somebody it has to be personal. one-on-one conversations we are not able to get into. what we should be doing frankly is to try to lead by example to the extent that we do have certain ideals are ideas that went to bring forward. we stand firm on this idea and her actions show it. i want to ask question. did you see some of the interference as productive for
mostly nonproductive? >> guest: with the means political -- it was a waste of time most of it. political interference is a fact of life in washington. his ex another very big deal but yeah was going to parents doesn't come with additional resources that the problem, where you're basically getting attacked her whipsawed by people from different directions and doesn't have do it getting more money or more support. john oliver made something -- from something negative in that affair says the white house. that has nothing to do with isis so this is a problem. i agreed we need to be bold and stand for our ideals. the isis project is about a very specific thing. in nice to be countered with kind of a real vision of
something. you can't fight something with nothing. it doesn't mean that the u.s.'s view alone is the one in the city put out there that this is an ideological struggle. it's also a struggle in other ways, military struggle. there's a problem of basically producing a counternarrative which holds water. it is a problem. >> host: he talks about the cftc in their efforts there. can you talk about twitter and facebook and private companies and what role you see them playing in this effort against isis if any? >> guest: we have done quite a bit of research on that in my current edition. social media companies need to do more. they have begun to do more. they are different. some have done a better job. facebook has done a better job for example in cleaning up radical content on line then say
twitter. there are other entities and we did a big report on this. where there's a russian german app which is heavily used by isis. so they are always going to look to see what is the most ungoverned space out there and social media. i'm not one for censorship. i believe in free speech but social media companies need at the very least to hold participants to their own terms a reference in their own rules. sometimes that's not happening. >> host: if you want to check out the report where can you go? >> guest: you can go to www.memory.org any good by material about radicalization and radical islam and extremism. >> host: we have 15 minutes left in the segment. if you have a question for alberto fernandez, columbus ohio line for independents. good morning. call good that morning. i'm very skeptical about all the
news that comes out about isil. they have made up stories and lied and put out propaganda as usual not verified. they talked about mass graves, 700 people buried or what have you. they couldn't verify mass graves that they had reported. they talked about crucifixions, people being buried alive, beheading of children. no evidence, nothing given. they had an article put out by the united press in the paper here that showed if one looks closely at the picture, and mannequin was dismembered near a car in front of the building and it said suicide aamer killed so many people who shows us manikin. if you look closely at it it's a
manikin not a person. i called the newspaper and i said what kind of news are you putting out here where you have mannequins and if you look closely at the manikin and not a person. >> host: you have looked into what's been put out by then? >> guest: is kind of a ridiculous comment that he made. i don't rely on isis propaganda. what are they actually saying and what are they actually doing and it's a ludicrous. there is footage by isis of mass murder. they don't try to hide it. they boast about it. there's one video that i saw and i actually wrote a report for it from memory of a life beheading of 900 members of the pacific sunni-arab muslim tribe in august of 2014 in syria. not sanitize like when they killed americans. they showed before-and-after, right? there are muslims were live in
the video. >> host: who do they want to see that? >> guest: that they did have a specific reason. that video was to tell specific tribes of syria and iraq that if you get out of line we will crush you. we will destroy you like the examples of prophet mohammad where entire is tribes were taken and all the men were and the women and children slowed -- sold into slavery. >> host: washington d.c. trevor is waiting on our line for democrats. >> caller: can you hear me? >> host: go ahead trevor. >> caller: i wonder if we are thinking about this the wrong way. we are focusing on the outrageous and appalling tactics of the leadership but behind them must be the mass of people willing to support them. they are not just unnecessarily by ideology as much as hopelessness and humiliation.
are there ways we can negotiate with these elements? could we address some of their grievances? i can imagine that isis could be so compelling if we took a harder line on israel and their criminal activities. i say this as a by the way. with the picture be different? do we only have to talk about this in a militaristic or clever social media why? >> guest: isis talks about subjugating the world. it talks about basically for the west presenting two options. you either convert to islam or you submit yourself to a humiliating -- so the idea that changing u.s. foreign-policy or being tough on israel somehow was going to earn us points with the audience that could be radicalized by isis is frankly ludicrous. >> host: scott in plane for new york on the line for the
republicans. >> yes, good morning. i look at this at several levels. the first level is i thank the muslims themselves have to discredit isis. the silent majority you don't see them demonstrating or marching in the streets are making their own propaganda films were telling their fellow muslims that there are parts of the koran that are against mass killings. i don't understand this mass psychopathy. there are so many psychopaths that are willing to kill people. this reminds me of nazi germany and the other propaganda ultimately it was boots on the ground that destroyed the nazis and that's the same thing that has to happen here. unfortunately when you blame global warming and lack of jobs
for the rise of isis, it's craziness and the jv team, how is that going to defeat isys? >> guest: is interesting. the jv team came as isis to the city of fallujah. it was kind of a local thing, not a very important thing. indeed there is a struggle going on in the muslim world especially in the arab muslim world and a crisis of authority in a crisis of cool rules under what kind of rule and what kind of worldview and that's much larger than isis. isis is one of many entities fighting that battle. so the ultimate victory is by the muslims among the muslims and the isac remember we are talking about isis who have been
extraordinarily successful in propaganda without a doubt. still they have been only able to radicalize a tiny minority of the muslim world. we are talking about very small numbers. we are talking about a billion numbers and even small numbers should be a concern but isis sees itself as a revolutionary vanguard. sure would like to have every muslim with them but for them the idea is to have a committed violent focus minority who can impose its will on everyone, similar to 1917 russia. >> on the jv team comment that you talk about how was it taken in the propaganda afterwards that you saw? to dave pay attention to that? >> guest: they didn't pay attention to that comment at all. what they did is they carefully and quietly use the victory in fallujah to produce the most successful video that they ever made.
the clanging of the swords penned this video about fallujah is the one that set the stage for the seemingly miraculous amazing fall of mosul. it was probably one of the most successful efforts of psychological operations spy ops in the history of the world -- were fair. >> host: trekker recruits? >> host: >> guest: attractive defenders of mosul and the population there and they demoralizing it from within. and was very successful. >> host: time for a couple of our coast. learn me wyoming margaret is waiting on her waiting on a call for independents. good morning. >> caller: good morning. mr. fernandez getting current i would like to know why in particular after the paris attacks that the continual bombing of isis enemies isn't
doing any good and i'm talking about the united states, a lot of him in, france, a lot of palming, russia, a lot of bombing. what's happening with all the almonds that is not having any affect? thank you. >> guest: while it has had an effect. it is prevented isis from expanding further than it would have. it's been a direct contributed to the fall of a whole range of important sites from mosul dam taken last year from isis with heavy air support by the u.s. to kobani to tikrit etc.. the problem is this and this is actually something new. bombing done from the air is not enough. you need to have people on the ground. so we need those outlays. all those names that i mentioned
places that have been taken away from isis were taken away from isis in collaboration with somebody on the ground with its kurdish forces are the iraqi army or somebody. .. n image of victory. they're like a puffer fish. it blows itself up to make itself look to your and meaner and better than they are. video they released west week in english to threaten the united states, they talked about the success of the islamic state. how can you talk about success when they are actually losing ground in syria and iraq? they talked about the franchises, the branches of islamic state popping up all over the place. not all of them are real, but some of them, nigeria, boko
haram, part of isis. libya, sinai, those are real and very dangerous branches of the islamic state. so they use the growth of these ranches to show success. to show growth. the other thing they use are the spectacular terrorist attacks. >> >> but in the absence of a p that like any news generating entity like kim kardashian they will look forward never gets the attention. military victory is the bestll if not how about cutting somebody's head off in a bizarre way? what about blowing up theoris church or a mosque or a
terrorist attack in the citypo of lights? those are substitutes of a power projection of growing the state and they will find other ways to get it your face. host: ohio line for democrats. >> caller: using for propaganda and ideology with the coalition with those conventional weapons and why don't they come up with a strategy? and to defeat isis. tha >> we are back to where we started.
>> and the physical state inpr the middle east is shipped -- slowly strunc -- wrong kid is under a lot of. but the virtual state the propaganda image is powerful and has found way to losing on the ground we need to do a lot more with social media with common-sense you need to have more numbers, 121 approach multifaceted material and make it more difficult to be on line but the biggest solution to thehing problem the open the andth clearly that everybody sees they are being crushedit because they depend on the i idea.
>> almost two years ago we signed a letter that said run, a hillary run. we promised it she took up the challenge when we know there is a lot of other things she could be doing with her time from a then we would be with her, a behind her, everything we could to make sure hillary clinton is the first woman president of united states of america. [cheers and applause] so i will make my comments very brief. it is without a doubt the
single most qualified by far of any person in this race is secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. always remember that because a lot of people will talk about all women's support within just because they are women. that is bold we support her because she will be one of the greatest presidents of the united states of america we have ever seen. [cheers and applause] though i will introduce of great friend of mine eyes and i'll introduce issued to someone because we have so little in common quite honestly. she is from hawaii and i
have from north dakota portia's buddhist and i am catholic she is japanese-american i'm german-american. and she is also little to the left of me but she is maya johanna that means my family and friend end the great senator from the state of hawaii. [applause] >> aloha. they give it to my sister. we campaigned together she usually introduces me and we have a lot in common that we are here because we're ready for hillary. [cheers and applause]
only one person could have brought this together and so many of my colleagues tonight and that is hillary clinton. as far as we're concerned the smart is the most experienced in the most committed i am supporting hillary because of who she is and who she draws inspiration from. that is rather dorothy. i would albee standing here if not for my courageous mother who fled in abusive marriage is in japan to bring me and my brother is here to have a chance at a better life. it was tough with noah job security your health insurance but she persevered and that is what hillary's mother dorothy did. she was abandoned at the
engaged in which to live with their grandparents and at age 14 she persevered dorothy's battle is hillary's battle. for all of us to get into the middle-class. with the first woman to get elected from our respective states. [applause] that was the case for iea and for the and when hillary clinton becomes the first female president it will signal to all the girls they can do or be anything had of course, when she becomes our
president that is to the nth degree i now introduce my sister from wisconsin the first openly gay purses in to be elected to give the united states senate. when she was less asked about this historic first she said i am now ready to make history i running to make a difference. given up. [applause] >> every ready your is ready for hillary?
why i am proud to support hillary clinton. as an attorney with the defense fund fighting to make sure children with disabilities with equal access to education from the first lady and secretary of state with the ldp -- lgbt writes on the global stage. and the health insurance program that we do s-chip. but we felt there is a lot on the substance to the symbolism and i want every young woman and every young
girl to look at the president of the united states to seize someone who looks a little bit like herself. [applause] we have been extraordinary opportunity to elect hillary clinton as our next president. to klay and the phrase off the sidelines because politics is not a spectator sport. please welcome to the stage senator delivery and. [applause] >> thanks for your mazing leadership rand friendship is an honor to be here with all of my female colleagues in with all of you.
thanks for supporting hillary. they did so much for our campaign to stuff envelopes and voting. for those to vote for candidates that represents their values but also to use elect more women from governors' mansions and two of the white house of course, . >> if we had more women serving more women in the date on issues that we care about affordable day care or equal pay for equal work if we are in congress we would never debated they should have equal pay for equal work or access to basic contraception. imagine if we had a woman president.
we know how amazing you will be withheld a three is the next president of the united states. and not just the women the more women that are in power we will have a stronger businesses and better communities the deal the way we will get there is if every person in this room does their part if you have the resources to win the election to make sure we have every single vote out then the women with end telerate will be the next president of the and states. >> it is my pleasure to introduce the uneasy leader the only woman a senator and a governor and a nation's history and eggs from for
policy, a clean energy and an amazing friend. >> caller: [applause] >> what an amazing crowd. greetings from the frontlines of the presidential campaign. last night we had our jefferson jackson dinner dinner, 1200 people which is a lot for a new hampshire unit all the presidential candidates were there are in o'malley and bernie sanders said hillary clinton. i have here to tell you that she rocked the house last night.
everybody has defenders' sticks my favorite wine is when she said i'm not begging to make a point the running to make a difference. i can tell you she will live in new hampshire primary. i know that because even though the polls say it's close those that are running the campaign like scott brown we sent him packing it will said the other candidates packing and hillary will win the first primary state. we have not raise winter travel packages available so , to knock on the doors to
help hillary become a matter of president of the united states. >> i am excited i natalie get to be here to talk about hillary bin also introduce one of my best friends you need al franken is the funniest member it is really a meet called the charge was the funniest member. but also the hardest working person for families and has spent traveling all over the country working for hillary. when she goes someplace the democrats when. she was said the vienna then they won the governorship. hillary will win.
ab -- ab? >> caller. >> begin so much you may be from new hampshire but i am just across the border from iowa. in fact, i can see i love from my porch. [laughter] hillary clinton will win iowa. [applause] first of all, this is my first reason i'm so excited about her campaign because it is personal i remember reading a column her agriculture papers because there weren't many women she had won in memorized the papers and now is put into action in seoul my mom is no longer with us and with
hillary started to run for president she had one goal at hillary clinton and will be president and i have a picture of marblehead hillary is my office and we will make that come true. >> the second reason is hillary clinton has but plans for the long-term one of my favorite themes is taking on the issue of substance abuse. they know someone that has severe addiction problems. and then read this speech to the council on foreign relations last week about what to do about the middle east.
but the last reason is incredible true grit you look at the benghazi hearing that is the definition of a true grit. looking her appearances and people have been able to get to know hillary clinton and the way we know her. you will see a shift the way people understand where she comes from under stadium grass roots campaign coming from the state of walter mondale when he pled geraldine ferraro on the ticket and to come from the stated here in -- a country whose said if we don't write
our own history somebody else will write in a porous. we will not let those guys write to our history for us. it is hillary clinton and she will be the next president. [applause] so speaking of true grit i have the great privilege of a woman who knows about true grit and that is the senator from missouri. i feet you know, she is one tough cookie and has won two tough races she is taken on government accountability and what matters to the state of missouri and she is
plenty ladylike. [applause] >> that was the senator next door. is a great fun to be here every morning i get up and i have a cup of coffee early developed at the day's news. it seems like every morning i read about the president for the americas -- for the party and i say she said what? [laughter] are you kidding me?
and then compare and contrast stable and strong, smart, the substantive there is no irresponsible rhetoric. the there is a lot of hard work and we have so much in front of us because this is a woman who understands she has to earn the trust of the american people. with a date you have not daunt -- steadied half by the end it is on netflix or itunes and watch it again.
the sacrifices that women have made to come to this moment. she will work to earn this and we will be proud of her while she does but to date by the creches treat ourselves to try something out to say it out loud for the first time. on account of three what we will call hillary clinton in january of the 2017. madam president. [applause] speaking in of substance there is a woman in the us and it never elbow's anybody out of the way or once the attention the always does the hard work that is why
respecters so much and i am so proud to be her friend please welcome senator cantwell from washington. [applause] >> hello washington. there are over 1,000 people here to support hillary clinton for president. and there are some senators said washington those that fix hair and makeup then there are though women. [laughter] we are here to support one of our own because as president hillary clinton knows we need to reach trade workers and veteran so they have a job of the economy of
the 21st century we need to grow from the middle and increase the minimum wage. and she knows she will sign the first bill that will say equal pay for equal work that is so we will get with hillary clinton and why we have to work hard last time the day before the caucus literally had her appendix taken now appreciative for the caucus i want us to go whenever the circumstances we will be there for hillary and to make sure it does become the law of lilly and. but now to say a word of my tremendous colleagues hillary has bought for health care heard tire life beduins senators stab ago
was on the committee that said in all the republicans tried to take now basically the provision for women's health care even one of my colleagues on the other side said why you'd be preventative care? we do need to take care of this and then debbie said your mom did that is why we're keeping it in the bill. we are ready to rock-and-roll. >> is so and then to put her
hand up to take the oath that is where the children and grandchildren the girls will though they can be any state they want to be. i have had the great pleasure of knowing hillary clinton for almost 30 years we bet on a panel at a convention in its detroit on protecting children per cry heard this wonderful woman who was there representing the children's defense fund and speak about how critical was to protect our children from child abuse and neglect
, it was an honor to come in with her in 2002 united states senate. we had the opportunity to come in and once again as a colleague i saw somebody willing to work across the aisle when it made since when to kick them in the rear when it made sense. fighting for working families, for choice, for health care including mental health and substance abuse services. i'm so proud of her efforts on that. for equal pay, all of that. we know what she did. now i want each of the women here to take a moment and think about something that we all can identify with on this stage. and that is out that in your life you've been told you were to this, you are to that. you are too tall, you are too
short. your heirs to this, your make up as to that. you smile too much and you don't smile enough. anybody have back? anybody have back? we have all had that. we are always told way, it's not your time. wade, there will be another time. today we are here to say it is our time. and president hillary clinton is just right. [applause] i now want to introduce another woman who is just right. she was told when she started by state politicians she couldn't make a politician -- difference concerned about saving her local preschool programs or were targeted for budget cuts. she organized 13,000 parents and saved the program and she put
her 10 put her tennis shoes on and she went to work to become a tremendous leader and advocate from washington state. she has made a huge difference first female senator from washington, the first female chair of the senate veterans committee where she fights every day for that -- our veterans. the first came out chair the budget committee where she got a major bipartisan budget initiative done a couple of years ago. she fights for education and transportation and budget in health care and women's issues. the senior senator from washington state patty murray. [applause] >> thank you so much for that introduction. so great to be here with all of you executives, professionals, teachers, moms, daughters and teachers, the bedrock of this campaign. that's who you are.
for years hillary clinton has inspired women and girls everywhere to punch through glass ceilings. she has made a career out of standing up for our families and our kids. she demonstrated america's leadership from one side of the globe to the other and just like all of us she still puts her pantsuits on one leg at a time. [applause] keen on working with me to win behind me on ways to help your country work for all of our families not just the wealthiest few. i recently heard from a woman named sandy from seattle who put herself through college she got a job in retail. her paycheck was next to nothing and the benefits actually were nothing. but she did what all women do, she worked harder. she earned a degree and she got a job. after a couple of months she was
chatting with a male colleague and found out he was offered 20% more for doing the exact same job. sandy was mad but she kept working harder. she went back to school and then she got back in the workforce again and now today she needs to make sure she has flexible hours to take care for kids and she keeps working harder and harder to keep up and keep her family's head above water. sandy and millions of women just like her in this country are looking for a president who is going to work just as hard for them as they do for themselves and their families. a president who listens to their stories and shares their priorities. who understand their challenges are real and that we can work together to pass a -- i have seen hillary in the senate.
i have known her for years and i know she is a woman for this job. [applause] i know how she much she cares and i know how hard she fights. i know she's going to be great president but i also know we have got to keep working hard to help her get there. we know republicans are going to fight as hard as they can to attack hillary to win this race but to see the energy of millions of supporters across the country, i know we are going to fight back hand i know we are going to win. [applause] so now i'm pleased to introduce the woman who's been there champion for women's health. she is the senator who will be so missed next year here in the
senate but his work will absolutely continue. please join me in welcoming my great friend forever, senator barbara boxer. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> this is so exciting. now it takes something extraordinary to overcome all the logistical hurdles involved in getting 13 of us here at the same time. and that's something extraordinary is hillary clinton. that's why we are here. i was a little late getting here tonight because i've been negotiating the final provisions of the major transportation
bill. [applause] and everybody here has been working with me on it for which i'm very grateful. and i look forward to seeing it passed what i want to say we have 60,000 bridges that are structurally deficient and 50% of our roads are not in good condition, and i was so happy to hear hillary say that one of her priorities is rebuilding america. [applause] moving america forward. fixing those bridges and those highways. and while she is rebuilding america she is in fact rebuilding our experience right now, isn't she? and we say hillary thank you for running because sometimes we forget we know what it takes. all of us appear to know what it takes. we know what comes at us running
for the united states senate let alone running for the highest office in the land. when hillary announced she was going to run i was over the moon and ecstatic. as barbara streisand once said i was -- because of it. why? a new we have a chance to elect a woman who is brilliant. passionate, compassionate, progressive, pragmatic and someone with a great sense of knowledge. she has gravitas and she has maturity to lead our country in the world. no one else but hillary can do that but you know now the stakes are so much higher. i believe this presidential election is about saving our country and i don't say that
lightly. when you hear republican candidates denying the science of time and change it is time to elect hillary clinton. [applause] they say they are not scientists. when we hear candidates say they would shut down the government in order to defend planned parenthood and where one republican candidate calls us pro-choice americans barbarians it's time to elect hillary clinton as president. [applause] when you hear candidates oppose calling the abolishment of any federal minimum wage it is time to elect hillary clinton. and when we hear donald trump.
you are paying attention to me. when we hear donald trump say he wouldn't rule out a special i.d. part for muscle -- card for muslims and ben carson compare seen refugees to rabid dogs, it is time to elect hillary clinton. [applause] we need someone who knows can make our country great in those diversity and someone who understands foreign policy. she has lived it and she understands hard power, soft power. she stands up for women's rights, for, is for civil rights for the environment for children our children and we know that is hillary clinton. i will finish with this before it turned to my incredible team of senators. i guess it's good to my age to
be called junior but imagine, i want you to imagine what it would be like in the year 2020, that's just four years away, as the country celebrates the 100th anniversary of women getting the right to vote. who will be presiding over those celebrations? president hillary clinton. [applause] to tell you how far i go back i remember bumper stickers that said i imagine peace. some of you remember that. we need to imagine, we need to imagine hillary presiding over that occasion. now many of us have made history in our own state. when diane and i ran for the senate in 92 there were only two women and look at this beautiful stage tonight.
[applause] and there are two more great ones coming. when we ran people would say to die diane me, are you kidding? at the could two women be elected to the senate from the same state and then made it and you were both jewish to boot. yeah. so what was really annoying and i would respond, well did you ever ask how it is the that two white male partisans could get elected to the senate in the same state like that would usually cause a bit of reflection on their part. and the senate needs it good dose of chicken soup. so that will join diane and i forever in history. more than 20 years later we are strong partners. throughout all these years i cannot imagine a better partner than senator dianne feinstein.
it is such a pleasure to introduce to you a woman who is one of the great national leaders on intelligence. she's a great national leader on protecting our rights from her judiciary committee and she is certainly not afraid to stand up to ted cruz on sensible gun laws. ladies and gentlemen, the great senator dianne feinstein. [applause] [applause] >> am i lucky to have barbara's a pardon or? i think so. and i want to thank everybody for coming. i want to thank you for a really looking deeply into this race. it isn't just that hillary is a woman.
if it were just a case you could make a negative argument but in this case hillary rodham clinton is clearly the most qualified candidate. what i spend a lot of time doing is in the intelligence world right now and what they see increasingly is it dangerous to place this world is, how knowledgeable and sensitive and qualified you really have to be to deal with people who need different countries when you want them to do something you want them to do. can anyone imagine donald trump in that position? and i think that if you look at someone that has had eight years as first lady, who has traveled the slant on her own and with her husband, then the president,
if you look at somebody who has been a united states senator from the great state of new york for eight full years. [applause] and if you look at someone who has been a most distinguished secretary of state would literally millions of miles under her belt and come to the conclusion that this is really the only candidate out there that has an opportunity because of the knowledge that is in her brain to solve some of the problems that we face as the most indispensable nation on earth and need to use that power that it gives us in a proper way. this race ladies and gentlemen is so important. it's a matter of fact i think as i watched the republican debate and i see what's coming down the pathway, it's really important
that we get out there and that we work for hillary. sure it's nice that she understands what we go through as a woman. it's wonderful that she knows how the world is for women but most importantly for all of us, it's the specific talent that she brings. it's her mind and it's her knowledge of world leaders. it's her knowledge of possible solutions to big problems. and so we have that opportunity now. i think in this race, to make a real change within the united states of america, not only a more compassionate nation, not only a nation that cares more about people who need a step up in life, not only a nation that wants to treasure education but a nation that has to lead in the world if some of the problems that are out there that you see
in paris, that we see in the middle east. it's often said that we have a big problem with terrorist groups and that isis is being contained. well it's now in 12 other countries. it's establishing provinces and other countries. hillary rodham clinton knows these things. she is educated in them. she has the ability to know where to go and who to talk to. this doesn't sound like much when you listen to it up here but it really is important. as you can see on this stage are 13 women who are not dried out supporters for this woman not only to become the first woman president of the united states but to bring the kind of expertise and energy and staying power. you saw her. the next debate shouldn't be
three hours. maybe just an hour. three hours is too long. anyone who has been in one of those hearing rooms knows sitting there for 11 hours and going through -- [applause] so we know that she has the compassion. we know that she has the staying power. we know that she has the drive. we know that she has the motivation. sometimes i don't understand how she can do it but she does it day after day and year after year. we have one great candidate. we should be so proud and we should work as hard as we can because i deeply believe she will be at rate american president. [applause] and now i get to introduce a
great american united states senator. i first talked to barbara mikulski -- [applause] when i was running for office in the phone ring and i said hello and i said who is this? she said oh this is barbara mikulski. how are you doing diane? i didn't know her and i said fine, thank you very much and went on and then i had the opportunity to actually meet her. she is 5 feet 2 inches and just incredible. you should see her run. many of us here serve on the appropriations committee in the senate. barbara has been the chair of the appropriations committee and tell the senate changed this past year. she rented with a strong hand and she gets it done. and so the women up here really value this united states senator and i think you will too.
she has not only been great for maryland but she's been great for our country. the president just recognize this by giving her the presidential freedom award is the biggest civilian honor that can be bestowed on an american. so it is with great pride that all of us up here today introduce you to the one and only senator barbara mikulski. [applause] [applause] >> hi everybody. [applause] hi, how are you? are you ready for hillary?
say it again, we are ready for hillary. [applause] i'm so glad to see all of you here and we want to thank you for coming to support the hillary for president campaign. we want to thank you from the bottom of our hearts and the bottom of your pocketbook. [laughter] we have many wonderful people here this evening but i want to recognize dorothy mccullough, the first lady of virginia. and also with give a shout-out to people who are on the front lines, the women in the house of representatives, the democratic women to stand up to those right-wing republicans. let's give a shout-out to them. [applause] now tonight we are here for
hillary and i know you were here for hillary and we are ready for hillary. we need to be there for her every day and in every way. she is out there campaigning and we are out there campaigning for her. you might have heard that i'm going to leave the senate at the end of this term. but i'm ready to turn a new page i'm not ready to run for final chapter. in my next 12 months i will be working for a democratic agenda and i will be working my-off for hillary. how about you? why do we want to do that? we know she has the right stuff and it's her time. 95 years ago women got the right to vote. don't you think after 95 years we should have a one in president?
[applause] and when hillary gets elected to the presidency, and she will, she will make history and she will change history. she will be fantastic but we have to work for her. we love hillary and why do we love hillary? first of all we know -- we know her but most of all she knows us. she knows her dreams and the needs of the people. she has been crisscrossing the country having meetings in roundtables, listening, listening, listening. she knows that all great leaders have to listen and learn for the people they are going to represent. she knows that the best ideas will come from the people and when she goes into that oval office you will take her hope that our genes with her. hillary will be quite a fighter.
she is already quite a fighter. we know her as a champion. we know her as a champion for the answer to really know her as a champion for the little guy and a little gal. we know that she has -- about what we need to be able to do is a nation. for hillary she will be our first woman president but for hillary it's not only about gender, it's in about an agenda, an agenda that will get us back on the right track started by president barack obama. [applause] we know that hillary will continue to fight for jobs, keep the ones we have got an try to create new ones. we know she's going to stand up for our families. affordable and accessible childcare to make sure public schools that we can count on and
the quality of education. a child should never depend on the cisco that they live in. and she believes in higher education should be part of the american dream, not a financial nightmare and to make college affordable for the majority for young people. that's the kind of president we need. and she wants to to close that income equality gap. she believes we have got to raise that minimum wage. united states of america a full-time job should not be full-time poverty and yet let's finish the job we started with lilly ledbetter. [applause] lets get that paycheck fairness bill to be signed by hillary rodham clinton. no one should be hassled or harassed simply because she asked what the guy next to her urns. no woman should ever be fired for asking about the pain she thinks she deserves.
she shouldn't be fired. we should be fired up. hillary will also look out for seniors and our veterans to make sure the social security continues to be an undeniable and reliable benefit. we don't want to privatize social security and we don't want to outsource social security. we want to keep social security. you want to keep medicare and we want to keep our values that made america the rate. we want hillary rodham clinton in the white house leading the fight for us. [applause] so friends we have got to be fired up. we have got to be ready for hillary. i think america is ready for hillary. i want you now to turn your attention to a video to see all these wonderful young people who feel exactly the same way we do.